tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 6, 2016 7:30am-10:01am EST
happening today on the house floor, this is the lead editorial in today's wall street journal calling it a victory over obamacare. congress puts repeal on the president's desk. if youy the larger -- want to read the editorial board today from the wall street journal. , we arethe phones taking your calls, your thoughts on how president obama six active action on gun control -- executive actions on gun control will impact the gun debate in this country. , gun sellersowners and those who don't own a gun. next from denver, colorado on the line for those who don't own a gun. obama's caucus
yesterday was one of the best i've ever heard from him. i've been waiting for a long time -- i've always been a follower of general mccarthy and jim brady. living in colorado, i know people like their guns. people want to hunt, that is fine. if somebody needs one gun in their house for protection, that is fine. i think the time has come for us a clampdown on the sales and size of magazine clips. another thing i think is interesting to mention, the reagan administration, i believe , was quite responsible for cutting down on a lot of the health care for the mentally ill.
and having people back on the streets again. people need to remember that when they think back on the reagan years. it let a lot of mentally ill people loose. or without care. i think the nra is way too powerful. host: one of the members in congress who has been a leading voice on new laws about mental health care in providing access in this country is tim murphy, republican of pennsylvania. , he sent out a -- that has been getting more momentum over the years, that he has gotten behind
this effort. one of the issues president obama it into his executive actions yesterday in his effort to push more money towards mental health access, $500 million is what was included. we will see of congress takes up that effort and what happens if -- werphy's legislation want to talk to gun sellers. in michigan, norm is waiting on that line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. well, the things that obama is proposing will not and all.ime -- all. it will put more of a burden on the honest gun owners and business people who make their
living that way. i worked in a gun shop as a of the store for approximately 40 years. and that was at felon that attempted to buy a gun. in the end, after the police were involved, they let him keep the gun. host: why is that? caller: he said he was giving it to his wife. host: are you saying people who want to get a gun will find a way to do it this bite what is espite books -- dus what is on the books? are only foraws those who obey them.
they affect them, they do not affect the criminals. there's tons of drugs coming into this country daily. if they were to cut off all guns, destroyed them or whatever , it would be like the wild west. if they can bring tons of drugs and, they can bring guns. guns are easily manufactured, old technology, actually. any of this has no effect on the criminal end. everything is not geared to affect the criminal. host: a few more headlines from papers around the country. the lead story in most papers. obama titans gun sale tightens gun--
sale restrictions. republic come obama ask him gun control. republic, obama's on acts on gun control. we want to keep taking your calls and getting your comments. clay in mississippi on our line for those who don't own a gun. caller: good morning. part of obama's independent actions that is so contrary to -- he can call for mental health things, but i'm telling you, he is the worst
excuse of a president we've ever had in our life. host: scott in st. paul, minnesota on our line for gun owners. good money. -- good morning. caller: this is a step in the right direction. i'm from a family of hunters. six boys in our family. we've always hunted. 1967e a certificate from when i was 12 years old from the nra when the nra was actually doing some good and was not a gun lobby. the point i'm making, they are saying more guns make us more safe in this country. if this is true, we should be the most safe country on the planet because we only have 5% of the population, yet we have 40% of the guns. even by using their own logic,
it doesn't make any sense. host: how many guns do you own? caller: right now, i just own one. at one time, i own about 12 guns. host: you still in member of the nra? certificate for gun safety. a course i took when i was 12 years old. from some numbers on that the council on foreign relations on firearms in the united states and homicides in different countries. per 100 people in the united states. the next closest is norway, then canada. firearm homicides --
numbers put out recently by the council on foreign relations. fr.org. the other new stories from around the world. in.s. soldier killed afghanistan yesterday. the soldier was a member of the joint u.s. afghan special .perations the taliban overran the city in november. the death of the u.s. soldier marks the first u.s. casualty of 2016. americans died in afghanistan. here at home, a few other stories for you. nikki haley chosen to speak for
republicans. that was announced yesterday by republicans. she is set to speak following tuesday's address by the president. one other story to point out for you this morning. this news just coming in overnight, north korea claiming a successful detonation of a hydrogen bomb. several updates, waiting to see of that has actually been confirmed or not. the washington post has been doing minute by minute updates on this story. the washington post noting in their coverage, if it was confirmed, the hydrogen bomb test would be in clear violation -- back to the phones.
jim is waiting in bloomfield, connecticut on the line for those who don't own a gun. the money. -- good morning. caller: i don't own a gun right now, but i have handled guns. i was head of production control at cold manufacturing. -- colt manufacturing. shipping 22,010 guns per month out of colt. just one manufacturer. 27,000. which i found absolutely ridiculous. one of the little girls who got -- the students.
one of the students that have killed in the massacre in , they held her funeral right up the street from me. one half mile from my door. host: when did you decide to leave that job? did your feelings about guns impact the job? caller: i bought a supermarket with my friends of mine. the president crying a survey, i have cried so many times. tears.re not crocodile often when i think
of the old ki little kids who gt assassinated in newtown. party hase republican gone completely mad. just think of what our economy if theook like republican party had tried to help at all. host: sonya is up next in washington on the line for gun owners. good morning. caller: how are you doing? but i was raised in a military family, so we were taught at a young age how to take care of guns and use guns. and to be very respectful. and i was 16, a kid got a hold
of a gun and was shot. best then, i've been very even though we teach them how to use guns and whatnot, we are very strict. what president obama is doing right now is a great thing. with the mental health and background checks. posted for agns gun show and they were all over the place. come on. people go in constantly and buy a gun just about anywhere. they have pretty strict laws. you can see how all these men -- they think they are holier than thou. i don't care what side they are on.
they don't realize what they're are doing, promoting children to say ok, we can do this, too. a gun will solve everything. host: can ask about the incident where you were shot and where that come came from? do you know how that gun got into the hands of the person who shot you? caller: it belonged to his brother. his brother was out of town and who -- his younger brother was 17 or 18, boom. it ricocheted off my rib. if not, it would have gone into my heart. myself what it feels like to be shot. outthese people want to go
saying obama is taking away their rights, it is not happening. we are not taking away guns. you have to learn how to respect this. just like a car. host: our last caller in this segment. we will be joined by two members of congress in today's program. a topic of conversation we will have with both of them in the wake of the president's announcement yesterday. ,oming up next, bradley byrne republican of alabama and new donald payneat junior. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv has 48 hours of
nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some programs to watch for this we can. saturday at 7:00, book tv at the university of wisconsin with william p jones to discuss his book, the march on washington. >> a movement that was really going to the court of many people's beliefs about what this nation should be. andid change a lot of minds fuel people to their positions of hatred and their commitment to inequality. >> at 10:00, afterwards with james rosen who looked at the life and political career of dick cheney. he is interviewed by the former white house press secretary for the bush and ministration. >> no one on the right had attracted more vitriol from the cheney with the
exception of george w. bush or richard nixon. >> vice magazine contributed editor molly crabapple talks about her journalism and her latest book, drawing blood. >> i started out writing personal essays. piecesgot five published . people really like them. i had this delusional fantasy that since i had written a 2000 word essay that writing a 100,000 word book would be like 2000 word essays. >> "washington journal" continues. host: accomplishments bradley byrne joins us for his first appearance at our desk. -- congressman bradley byrne.
debate, it's about more than the second amendment. it's about executive overreach and the limits the constitution places on the president. know from taking high school civics, the way you make laws in america is that the congress passes a law and the president signs it. what he is trying to do is criminalize something that has not been criminalized before, private gun sales. the statute in place does not cover those in sales. if you wants to cover those, you go through the congress, we pass a law and it comes to his desk and he signs it. he cannot act unilaterally. he has tried to do this and other areas before and he failed. he will fail on this one as well. a better way is to address the underlying problem. in one set of circumstances,
people with mental health issues and the other circumstance with a lone wolf terrorist threat. let's talk about those. host: you practiced law for a long time. the president in his remarks yesterday talked about the second amendment and how the second amendment has to be balanced against the other parts of the constitution. [video clip] our rights are also important. second amendment rights are important. there are other rights we care about as well. we have to be able to balance them. our right to worship freely and safely. [applause] was the toht christians in charleston, south carolina. and jews in kansas city and suslims in chapel hill and sikh
in oak creek. i write for peaceful assembly. that was robbed from moviegoers and aurora and the lafayette. to life,enable rights liberty and the pursuit of happiness were stripped from college kids in blacksburg and santa barbara. at columbine.lers host: your thoughts on this idea of balancing those rights. guest: of course. congress has to balance them all the time. it is not his place to balance. he is usurping the authority of the congress, usurping the authority of the courts when he asked unilaterally. he has lost every time he is been challenged. if we are going to have a discussion about balancing rights, let's do it the way the constitution is set up.
come to congress and work with us. i'm happy to work with him. i want to work with somebody who wants to get at the nub of this problem. my grandfather was shot and killed and devastated my family. when we talk about people who have been shot by mentally ill people, i understand that. i understand what it does to the victims. we are not going to solve this -- he is not willing to do that. he is trying to put a bill through congress -- no cooperation from the democrats. zero help from the white house. work with us on that. .ork with us host: do you think you can work with the part of the exec the border that calls for $500
million for increased access to mental health care? guest: we should look at a bigger approach to mental health care. he tries to get everything down to money. let's look at a bigger approach. he has plenty of people on my side of the aisle ready and willing to work with him to get something that. -- get something done. host: dhhs looking to finalize rules regarding health record privacy laws to remove barriers to states doing background checks. something you would agree with? guest: it worries me because that is changing the law put into place to guard your privacy and my privacy when it comes to health records, health information. something we should all be very careful about. host: congressman bradley byrne is our guest.
.or democrats, 202-748-8000 republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. tom calling in from california on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. congressmanask the --it seems to me host: stop listening to your tv. caller: they're just not getting it. he is trying to make it harder for people to get guns. kids in the elementary school, the mama bought the gun, it was all legal. it doesn't make no sense. he is trying to make people accountable. when i buy a car, i drive it to
make sure. is that person accountable if that person tries to kill somebody? guest: if you're interesting point. interesting point. we have a system where we actually do have background checks by licensed gun dealers. that is a good thinker die support that. -- that is a good at saying. i support that. -- that is a good thing. i support that. at some point, you have to say, wait a minute, there is a responsibility of the person who has begun. let's hold that person accountable under the law.
we should hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law. don't penalize the other 90% plus people in america who buy guns legally and use them because we have a tiny percentage of people who have violated that. i take every incident of gun violence seriously. it has affected my family. we have to make sure we what is at the nub of this problem and what is not in the president's plan will not affect it at all. i'm willing to work with him and i hope he is willing to work with us in congress to come up with something that will really solve the problem. host: hiring 230 more fbi officials to help in the background check system. to 200 more atf officers to help enforce the laws on the books. are those aspects you could work with? guest: we don't see anything
that shows we are not adequately doing that now. you have to have the check done within three days and there done within three days. i would love for it to be done quicker than that. problemthink this is a of government bureaucracy. this is a problem of not dealing with health care, not dealing with domestic loan will terrorists. -- lone wolf terrorists. host: kelly is waiting on our line for republicans in georgia. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. the problem i have with our imperial president, he keeps wanting to grow the size of government. so far, it seems the attacks that keep happening, the loss and things helaws
wants to implement affect law-abiding citizens. the one thing i wonder about the democrats, people like president clinton, wonder if they would be willing -- there secret service, their people, they get watched. them and their family get by security 20 47. 24/seven. would they be willing to ask their security to put down their guns and carry tasers or something like that? guest: a very good point. growing government does not solve this problem. being smarter with what we are , being a lot more persistent about dealing with people who are mentally ill and not getting the health care they need would be better.
getting much tougher about people who are lone wolf terrorists in this country, we get to this problem. growing government will not solve this. approach we see over and over again in washington. there is self-defense going on here. the present, ms. clinton met they have armed people around them. -- the president. an americang with citizen deciding to protect themselves when they don't have those guards? what is wrong with that? i do think there is some self-defense that we should expect from american people as they go about their daily lives. being vigilant as part of that. looking out for things.
but let us protect ourselves as well as these public officials have other people protecting them. having weapons to do so is a part of that and i do support going back to your legal background. dj wants to know if it is an executive action or executive order. what is the difference from a congressional perspective? guest: executive action could include a regulatory agency. here is the interesting thing. we have the statutes that talks about occasional sales. occasional sales are not covered by the statute. we have to decide case-by-case by case, do i have a sale here or not. no one has suggested that prosecutors are wholesale or are
violating their discretion in doing that. so now the president will stuck in -- resident will step in and tell the prosecutors, here is how you should do your discretion. host: silver spring maryland is next. dawn is waiting for our call. caller: i want to applaud the president for what he is doing. as a citizen, i don't like guns and i don't like to be around guns. i don't want to go to a shopping mall or a sporting event and worry that a man or woman will go around shooting a bunch of people. these killings are happening once a month. european countries don't have these problems because they have sensible gun control. i would ask the congressman how
much money he is getting from the nra for his campaigns every year because that is part of the root of the problem. a lot of the republicans and probably some of the democrats are getting money from the nra added clouds their judgment. they are not looking at things in an impartial way. the average person does not want all of the shootings and killings. that is my comment. guest: first of all, let me correct one thing. europe does have mass shootings. he had one in paris a few months ago. motivatesl you what me at most people in congress on this issue. that is what we hear from our constituents. if the nra didn't exist, let me assure you, there are an anonymous number of people who are very vocal with me. they will seek me out like what i was shopping over christmas, to make it clear that they don't
want the federal government taking the rights away from their guns. the nra,e i hear about it isn't the nra. if the nra didn't have people in our district, we wouldn't be doing what we are doing. right to not want your gun. you have a right to not want her gun and you have a right to be safe from the people who do. i will defend your right not to have a gun and i understand any statute that we have got out there that prosecutes people when they use a gun to hurt another person. i think that is the proper way to deal with that issue. not just to create a new set of laws that prohibit the second amendment rights from the citizens who expect to have the rights enforced by officials. tweaks, -- fewer other tweets.
bill rights, hunts -- guns belong in three places the home, hunting at the gut rage. right's, make assault weapons illegal. have a buyback. there will be no cords attacking you. -- is sponsoring legislation for a gun buyback. we'll talk more about that later. i want to ask you, we did and the hiller with newspaper who wrote the story, she pointed out in the interview that certainly, going to get vetoed by the president when it makes it to the desk. how is this effort to pull back the affordable care act any different than past ones? because this one goes to the president's desk. at -- hadus ones had
died in the senate. this is already passed in the senate. this has never happened before. this is for him to sign or veto. he should do the right thing and sign it, but i don't think he will. that sends a clear message to the people of america. the majority of them do not support this law. this sends a message to the majority of america. if you want that, there is the party you should support. but if you don't want that, then there is another party out there. year.a presidential it is a fair issue, i am glad we are putting this out there. not to the people who have seen their premiums go up this year 28%. national people in my district whose deductibles have gone up exponentially. this is an important
thing to put it on the president's desk. i ask him to do the right thing and sign it. do that, we will have an override vote. the election is this year and i think the american people are our side. bradley byrne is a member setters of rulers for the floor. go throughommittee all things that come to the floor. he is our guest for the next 25 minutes. mark is up next, from florida on the line for applicants. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason for the record gun sales are that every year since the obama became president, the homeland security department issues a report listing the ,nemies of the country
christians, veterans, people who believe israel has a right to exist, people who want to constitution restored -- we fear our government. the reason for the second amendment is to be able to fight tyrants. guest: one of the ironies here is that the president wants to stop gun sales and every time he gets up and talks about this, he increases gun sales. we have had an enormous increase in gun sales which is a great irony. another reason why we are not getting to the problem. if he doesn't want more guns to be out there, more ammo to be out there, quit talking about people's right to have those. let's get back to the nub of the problem. it isn't that people have guns, it is that people with mental illnesses have guns. they shouldn't be out there without proper health care. so we have an increasing threat
to this country, of lone wolf terrorist attacks. if we focus on those, we can substantially decrease gun violence in this country. but this is getting us nowhere. maryland is river, up next where charles is waiting on the line. charles, you are on. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. a couple of quick notes on the gun situation. i have been listening to your program today and you had a gentleman on who said he is a gun dealer and he will trade a gun to a guy by just asking to see his license. that gun got into the wrong person's hands and they ended up killing somebody, isn't that worth as taking a look at?
isn't that worth us trying to stop? we hear a lot of smoke and mirrors going on today. who is aerson law-abiding citizen who would want to get a gun would be prevented. in fact, with the new people put in place to help with the process, they would get a gun faster. host: the caller refers to one of the earlier colors. the situation described -- we had a special line for and dealers. the caller was talking about his situation. your response? smoke and mirrors yesterday came from the president. it wasn't a sincere effort to deal with the problem. to what actually happens. a licensed gun dealer is either , athe shop or a gun show person comes up and wants to buy a gun. before the dealer can sell the
gun, they have to run a background check. i have bought guns over the last several years and i have had my background check. no big deal. they are able to do it most of the time fairly quickly. no big deal. het happens to the gun after dealer sells it, that is part of the criminal justice system in maryland. if you can have a gun legally and then do something illegal with it, we have the things to deal with that. we can tighten down on those but i don't think that is where the problem is. the note of the problem is that we have mentally ill people that get their hands on guns. we have domestic terrorist to get their hands on guns. and let's talk about the bigger problem. young people, people involved with drunks -- with drugs and gangs, they are shooting for more people and killing far more people in we see in the mass shootings.
so let's talk about dealing with the real issue. the real cause of the problems and not having another performance by the president that is going nowhere. there are a lot of numbers being thrown around on the twitter page about the percentage of americans who want more control than those who don't. here is a chart that is in today's washington times. a poll about the number of americans who want stricter gun control laws. the number is in the 55% range. those who think they should be left alone is closer to 30%. those who want less strict gun control laws is 10%. about 18 states and the district of columbia have implemented laws that go beyond the requirements. you can see the chart there that show the different states that have those laws that are stronger than is on the books.
catherine is up next from mobile, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning congressman. i voted for you in the primary. you looks like the lesser of two evils. because youyou promised to work across the aisle and to not pander and to represent us in alabama as civilized individuals. i am disturbed server because your party is asking -- is acting like a bunch of junior high boys, not explaining to people the civics. you need to educate the people of alabama. you do not need to stir them up and make them think they are fighting a civil war. it is disgraceful and you need to stop hindering. please do your job as a's congressman -- as a congressman and represent us with dignity and civility and do not play into the people of this caliber.
i thought you were a well-respected lawyer in our community. i did place my vote thoughtguys i really that you would go up there and act like a decent human being. host: i will let you respond. guest: it is good to hear from you. let's talk about reaching across the aisle. i take every opportunity i can to find ways to work with democrats on issues. you may not know this but there have been important pieces of legislation passed in the last couple of months that were big bipartisan bills. is taking the federal government out of k-12 education , the long-term highway bill to do better something about the bridge to cross the mobile bridge -- i like working bipartisan. i take every effort to do that. i don't pander to anybody.
i take my position on the issues based on what i think is right and wrong. there are differences between the parties. there have always been differences. from the beginning, from the constitutional aventurine -- constitution convention. it doesn't mean we are pandering to special interest groups. it means we are standing on principles and the two parties have different principles. workl always find ways to across the aisle but i will not when it violates a principle that is important to me and the district. i appreciate your point of view. the middle east is on fire , saudi arabia, iran conflict. what is the redness of our armed services? great question. we can react fast on an instance by instance basis. but we cut defense spending over
the last several years and it has eaten into the overall solvey and readiness to problems in the middle east and around the world. i am very concerned about what is happening to the fleet. this pivot to asia, we don't have enough ships. just before we went to break, the secretary of defense announced that he wanted to cut back our ships which we need around the world. been cutting back on spending at the president has been cutting back on his to defends to engage american people. we have to rethink this. we have no strategy right now. president, toe get a new authorization for the use of military force in syria.
as a matter of law, we don't have a ums in place. let's put the resources in place that the commanders need and then tell he commanders, do your job. have pilot to go in the field who have planned missions and targets and they come back and have a child a thing because we have such tight rules of engagement that we can't do the job that we set out to do. that is what our american military does. let's give them the resources that we need. i guarantee you that we are superior to any other military person in the world. we have to make up our minds to do it. topic, on rules of engagement, we are having an entire segment coming up in an hour on that area and talking about the rules of engagement in our spotlight magazine series.
the national review will join us to talk about that. so if viewers want to stick around for that, that is at 9:15 today. started, since bombing how has this authorization for the use of military force changed things? well, you have a strategy first. which we don't have right now. that, youif you pass are telling our military men and women and our adversaries, we are armed on this. the congress, the president and the people -- that is a strong signal to spend. the law doesn't matter. we are not in keeping with the law right now. on the rules of engagement, we had a hearing on this at the armed services committee a few months ago. i can't go into that because it
is classified that i am astonished by what we heard about the rules of engagement. we have to change the rules of engagement. we are pampering it ability -- we are hampering the ability of our men and women to go and do what they are good at doing. we have to make sure the rules of engagement are appropriate for the circumstances. waiting in is pittsburgh. thank you for waiting. caller: happy new year to everybody. host: go ahead. caller: i have a couple of questions. i used to do background checks for firearms. when i used to do the background purchasehe gun laws to and kerry are two separate laws. so when i would go and deny , he put money down on
the firearm knowingly that he misdemeanorty or a one. the laws apply differently from -- purchasing and carrying a permit. they are two separate laws. people lose money but they should know better because you in your mind know whether you have done a crime and whether you are convicted of a crime. it says it on the application. have you been convicted of a crime? the answer is no and that is a lie. there is a misconception. the second point i wanted to ake, the second amendment was too radical government that is out of control, they're not working in the best interest of the american people. 100 something million people and we are not like everyone else.
we are the only country on earth that is basically civilize. that is why we are an exceptional country. there is a difference between purchasing laws and carrying laws. laws for carrying are set by the states. states can't use their power to interfere with a second amendment right. but as long as they are not interfering, a can go beyond what the federal government states withf the the strictest laws are also some of the states with the mass shootings. it goes to show that restrictions don't work. once again, if we want to do something about this problem, talking about the restrictions aren't getting us anywhere.
let's talk about dealing with the mental health problems and the domestic terrorism threat. we should do something about the gang violence. that is where the problem is. if somebody's family has been directly affected by a shooter is mentally ill, that is a far bigger problem. host: that he is on the line for the independents. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. situation, thewn polls said 90% of the people withd extra help prevention of the shooting. but nothing was done. you representause us. but you didn't represent us by even putting out any kind of bill to help us solve this problem.
and to put it into perspective, there are 90 funerals the day for the people who were killed in the united states. 90 funerals a day. --lways hear the same thing guns don't kill, people do. well, the hydrogen bomb kills. it doesn't make any sense. you are not representing us. where are the bills and answers to these shootings? he did not put on a performance. i commend president obama a cousin at least he is trying. at least he is doing something. you guys are not. host: the numbers i can give you before i let him respond, the centers for disease control, 33,600.earm deaths, firearm homicides, 11,200,
firearm suicides, 21,000 of those. congressman? take into account -- connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. it didn't do anything to help there. unfortunately, this young man who was very militant -- very mentally ill, his mother bought him a gun with all of the restrictions. and he still got that gun and killed her and those children. the problem there was not the fact that there weren't restrictions. we had plenty of restrictions. the problem was that we had somebody who that a mental illness who didn't get the help he needed at his mother didn't understand the situation she was forward so that she would understand better so that our whole system would respond better and get him the mental health care that he needed. the reason i say the president's
conference yesterday was a performance is that it isn't going anywhere. he is a smart man. was fiction, but we didn't get any solutions. the mental health crisis act going anywhere? guest: i hope so. i am a cosponsor on the bill. it would change the policy on that bill. the democrats have been pushing against it. forward, and we do have to make some compromises here and there to make it go, fine. but if we got that in place, it would take an important step to dealing with the mental this problem. host: do you have a date for the house floor? guest: we know we still have issues to trying get the bipartisan support. we could pass it tomorrow with
the republicans. but we don't want to just pass it with the republicans. we want the president of the white house to be on it. if democrats were serious about this, i.s. them to come forward. help us do something about mental health in this country. a lot of these problems would go away. how old were you when this incident happened? before i was born. my grandmother was turned into a widow. security,efore social she had to go to work to raise three small children. mytraumatized my mother and grandmother and my two uncles for their entire lives. i never heard once anyone of them say, let's do something
about guns, but i heard them say, what are we doing about mental health problems? host: so it was talked about openly? absolutely. i asked why they shot my grandfather. co --aid he was "sick or "sick." they didn't do anything about his sickness. let's do something about that. we will save people from going through that terrible trauma. we are not doing that. we need to engage in that issue. i think republicans and democrats can work together. we will try to get a few more calls. david has the weighting of the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. know, as the congressman has
said, we have had all of these places, where the crimes are committed, we have the strictest gun laws, just like what the president is calling for. nothing worked. the reason is that they do not to buythe people who try guns illegally. they pander to groups like the black lives matter. they don't care about the criminals of crime, no matter the race. they p.m. in the illegal immigration groups. and it is funny that a lot of cities thatary don't enforce immigration laws and allow criminals and murderers from outside the country to come in and won't do anything about it. you have organizations like the
center for disease control who have been caught many times lying and making up figures. they are taking away our firearms. it has all been a big fat lie. talk about the victims of crimes, but a lot of times, we don't realize the victims are who are most affected. we quickly go to talk about victims, but black lives do matter and unfortunately, the blacks in america or just shortly affected by gun violence. all of us should be concerned about the fact that this is a disproportionate problem. lacks are dying at the hands of people with guns. most often it is another black person who has done that. let's deal with that problem. whether it is for the black families who have been victims of the gun violence.
or families like mine who have been victims of mental illness pilloried -- illness. all of it matters. let's work together to fix all of it. i want to address it. most every member of congress wants to. barbara,ant to get in on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. my husband is mentally ill. shotgunlled an empty and he is not taking his psychotic medicine. he has kidney disease and they didn't want to take into dialysis. they complained so much that they were going to do it in the , and they said they wouldn't allow him to get this in the cell. plus he is paranoid and schizophrenic.
so they might as well give him a gun and let him use it on him. he has been in that sell for two months now and he hasn't gone to trial. guest: a great point. mental health is not only a health issue but it is also a security issue. it is also a criminal law issue. it is protecting the american people. here's a person who needs to get in better health and our policies are getting in the way. if we don't help them with this problem and we let him a jail, he is likely to do something. we know that. let's not put our heads in the sand about this problem. government should be a bipartisan thing. let's get all of these people help they need. host: congressman bradley byrne represents the first district of alabama. we appreciate your time this morning. join us again. up next, we continue the
>> we need to know how the people are reading us. we need to know how they are coming to us. so if they are not coming directly to the website, if they come to us through they spoke or google or twitter, or any other venue, we should know that. day,nday night on cue a the washington post executive editor talks about the changes of the washington post since he took over in 2013. he also discusses the depiction of his work in the movie. how think it is faithful to the investigation unfolded. it is important to remember it is a movie at not a documentary. we had to compress within two hours, a seven-month investigation. you had to introduce a lot of characters and important themes. night on q&a.
c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. our student camera documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. road to then's white house coverage and get the details about the contest on c-span.org. announcer: washington journal continues. congressman donald payne jr. joins us for the first time although he has been in congress since 2012. he was elected to succeed his father. we want to start with the president's executive action on can control. how would you describe it was proposed and what was in the executive actions? are these major new restrictions? well, some people feel
that we have gone too far. in the president's action. other people feel that we haven't gone far enough. what theally, president has done, and i commend him to it, is he is finally done something. he has been asking congress for years now to act on a gun legislation. to help stem the tide of these issues that we have had around the country. that he could not just sit around anymore and he isnothing be done, taking executive action. we think this is the right action, it strengthens the whole issue around background checks. host: republicans are already talking about challenges this. that theseed are you things get challenged? myst: it is unfortunate that
colleagues will even allow the opportunity for the implementation of this executive order before they are crying that the president has overreached. he is well within his power to do so. abouty were concerned that, than there is something that we should have taken this up in the last several years. the president's compassion yesterday. we talked about the different incidences that we have had. when they got to newtown, it was a real emotional impact that it has had on him. i think that was the worst day of his presidency. it really shows his compassion.
for young people on this whole history around gun violence. we will be joining become a station the next 40 minutes. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. , (202) 748-8002. of danto show a clip wickman who recently talked about the difficult politics of gun control. he was a former congressman from kansas and he was talking about being a democrat on this issue, being elected to office. here is what he had to say. for federaln 1994 gun control legislation. which put a ban on assault weapons. i was a pretty good congressman,
i did all of the right things. i had a big district. i was an aviation nut. i voted for this bill and i lost in that election in 1994. there are many reasons why i but withoutction, question, the biggest factor was my vote on gun legislation. and who did i lose in the process? democratic bases, blue-collar workers who were nra members and felt my vote was wrong. it of that experience, learned how hard this issue is. it is a cultural issue and in many places, it is a religious issue. it is rural versus urban. that is a big factor. to theistening
congressman's comments on that. has that changed at all since 1994 when he was talking about his experience? guest: i think that they have, considerably -- it is types ofte that these things happen over politics. but you know, we have a situation in this country that we see on the news every night. with the violence and the gun violence. different mass shootings that we have had over the past decade. by and not try to do anything, it is unconscionable. talkedsident yesterday about the steps, moving forward, in order to have sensible gun legislation. it is shown in the polls that they vary, whichever one you might look at areas but the
majority of the american people are for what the president did yesterday. sensible gun legislation. background checks. if you have not done anything wrong or don't have anything to hide, in terms of your background, i don't understand what the issue is about strengthening that. and ensuring that one gun could potentially get in the wrong hands, doesn't get there. and so i really am looking forward to the president's initiative going forward. the congressman recommends -- represents the 10th district of new jersey and the jersey city area. he is our guest for the next 40 minutes. calling in from virginia, david is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling because the reason because the is
republican party consists of older white males. -- ucp assaultns rifles, you see them pointing at the federal officers. they are running up the federal buildings. it is making them feel superiors because they have started to become obsolete. and that is why they want the assault weapons that they have. have some control as long as they control congress. well i, this country was built on the liberties and freedoms that we hold sacred. as ahe right to bear arms second amendment is very important. in going along with this nation's history and dealing with the constitution
and making sure that we still have these freedoms that we do hold so dear, we need to do some things that are reasonable and make sense. especially in the timeframe that we find ourselves in. and i feel that sensible gun legislation is definitely the way to go. we cannot sit and do nothing. what i will sing about my colleagues on the other side of stagnated,they are they have stagnated the conversation in terms of gun legislation. inause of strong interests lobbies that we have in this country. them and they really don't feel that they want to go against these large organizations. so it is just unfortunate. answering tolves
the large gun companies and and this entities doesn't fit their agenda. up next on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment before i leave my question, as far as guns are controlled, we have statistically had a drop in gun violence in this country. i feel like all sides of the .isle haven't been forthright me being in public and myself, we definitely have a problem lobbying. we have a problem with the fact that we can't be sensible about how we look at people's privacy when it comes to mental health checks. but on the other side of the
aisle, we talk about commonsense legislation. is, what is the problem with having more on the people saying that if you misuse your gun, you have mandatory -- because people who want to hold they have a lower probability of committing a crime. but with the people on the street, federally, we don't have a law that says, if i buy someone a gun and give it to law --here isn't a good that is a problem. [indiscernible] why did he not visit the criminal actions? that is what the president's initiative is all around.
it is about making it more difficult for people who should not have the right to own a gun or have guns illegally to try to work on that issue. around, theooking president is not looking to take anyone's guns away. what anyone is talking about. it is seeing opera -- seeing aurora and newtown and -- there, a synagogue was an issue with a synagogue where there was a shooting. types of things that the president is trying to address. have strictve to gun laws in order to try to curtail some of this that is
going on. host: i want you to talk about the safer neighborhood gun buyback legislation. the safer neighborhoods act was something that i have worked on over the past two terms of mine. inntroduced it back 2013-2014. i continue to try to enhance it and make it better. about, it isalks having a good gun buyback program, a federal buyback program. we see local programs that have been successful. gunthis will be a national buyback program. it goes through the whole notion around not doing anything.
i felt that i had the way and in some ways on this issue. i come from a largely urban area in new jersey. violence is a definite issue. and it impacts many different people in the community. i felt like i had to do something. in terms of talking to getting guns that shouldn't be on the streets, back off the streets. about $360 million is what you are looking for? there are about 360 million guns in this country. there are 400 million guns in -- 86 million shotguns, how many guns do you think $360 million could buy back? guest: well, i am not sure.
assess will be able to the market value for the guns. i believe that we have set the retail for every that's the atf would buyback. so you know, it is a drop in the bucket. but the will of my colleagues to come on either side of the aisle , they are reluctant to move forward on anything. we thought we would start there. daniel goolsbee dean says it is silly to think that making a market in the commodity will make that commodity scarcer. policing at wisconsin say
buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes. that and others have said criminals steered clear of iraq programs unless they are trying to make quick cash. guest: you know, they are entitled to their opinion. but i feel to the contrary. i feel that we need many steps in order to work and stem the ties of guns being in the hands of people who might misuse them. the whole issue around domestic violence? once that are used against family members during times of issues in the home? i had some distant relatives that were attending a funeral down south. and all of the services were done that day. we were back at the home for the
fellowship with the family. one of the young toddlers around 6-year-old or 7-year-old found a gun in the night table and ended up shooting. of things,he types even if we could save one person, it is well worth it. that is why i'm doing what i'm doing. is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. my issue is responsible control of the gun owners guns. from the day it is manufactured to death, the day it is destroyed. couple of points i would like to make, and i hope you can take me up on this. why does america want gun control in the 1960's when they
saw barney field and the black panther party exercising their constitutional right with firearms. and shortly thereafter in california, they took away guns really quick. i live in baltimore. we have what? reeducate murders in 2015? i don't know about you, but ask yourself, do you trust a stranger or a neighbor with a gun? know, i don't really know my neighbor, i trust them enough to not go on their property. but with the gun shooting rate, look. inived in camden new jersey 1980's. let me tell you. you cannot just trust anybody to bear it firearm. congressman?
guest: well, you know, there are definitely issues in terms of having people use guns responsibly. the majority of the american people are law-abiding gun owners. but there is an element that we have to deal with. people don't use them responsibly or they use them to commit crimes. so the president yesterday laid out his plan and what he could do through his executive order. is it enough? i don't think so. but it is a start. and we are heading in the right direction. i applaud him for trying to do something. even if the courts and a overturning it. the president did not sit on his
hands and just not do anything. i commend him for trying to move forward in an issue that is critical to this nations health in so many ways. we talked about mental health which i think is one of the most important issues. if you look at the individuals who are treated them, there is some question about the mental health. and so the president yesterday -- to look at the issue around mental health and these tragedies. she has been pointing the important issue here and trying to address it. is waiting onmike the line for republicans. good morning. i was just wondering why
it is that the president and democrats show so much compassion about children being killed with guns but no compassion for children who are killed to abortion? especially when we see how planned parenthood is packing up the bodies? i don't know if that is the case or not. in terms of that issue. -- we thought the president yesterday, he has been accused of not having any compassion or being stoned fast -- stone faced with no motion -- but when he thought about those children in newtown and what it , saying it was the worst day of his presidency, and
i agree with him. if we could not act after newtown, there is a very serious problem. and it saddens me that after something like that, that we are still in the same place and have not been able to find some way to compromise and agree as a nation. to make sure that situations like that with those babies doesn't happen again. houston, texas. patty is waiting period good morning. caller: good morning. i applaud you for this. i had some relatives that got shot down when it wasn't during anything.
that itleman before you try to get in -- the president is trying to do everything he can. you do what you can. now.an carry guns openly i am scared to go anyplace. because you walk in and someone says something to you wrong, they could explode. can.u do what you to give youying your constitutional rights, he is not going in your house or telling you anything. guns thatte a bit of my husband had. i have been locked up -- i have them locked up very good. i know i'm not going to kill anybody. you have to have prevention for this. he was crying -- when you have
children -- the gentleman before you, he doesn't have any compassion. he was talking about his father or granddad? how do you feel like those poor people with all of the children, walking into a church and they were gunned down? i tend to agree with her. there is some point in time where we have to really step back and assess the situation. people can't even worship in a church on a wednesday night anymore without potentially having something tragic happen. children can't go to school on a normal school day and learned their abcs at the beginning of their education without something tragic happening. young people can't go to high
school over a decade ago and not have something tragic happen. , in ourtreets every day urban centers, young people have to be careful about where they walk and where they are going. something needs to be done. and there are people out there that don't see that there is a national issue with gun violence. and they have their eyes closed. teresa is up next on the line for republicans. caller: hello, how are you? host: good, go ahead. my comment is, i don't feel like the laws that we have in place are being enforced. my husband and i are both gun owners have been all our lives.
we had a daughter and we took her to gun safety courses and she learned how to use a gun to hunt. we earn -- we own many guns. i think that most of the gun violence in america is caused by people in games, dealing with drugs. the laws that we have now on gun control are not being enforced. introducedre being to deal with gun violence concerning gangs or drug dealers? basically, and i applaud you for that, you are one of the people who we are talking about and protecting your weapon properly. taking your daughter to learn the responsible use of guns. and you are right.
what the president did yesterday the lawess the lack of not being enforced. that is what a lot of his executive order had to do with enforcing. so if you really take a good look at it, and a lot of people just jumped up and thought that he was infringing on their rights -- actually, no. have the laws that we have on the books upheld and that is basically what his executive order was about. i agree that a lot of the street violence, in terms of guns, has to do with drug traffic and people using that in order to ply their trade which is illegal. these types of things are being addressed and with his executive
order, talking to the atf about looking at those issues and i commend you for understanding what the issue is and talking about it responsibly. that is all the president is talking about. he is serving in congress and has served since 2012 when he took over the seat of his late father. fromather held that seat 1980 until 2012. here is the new york times obituary. in congress, he was a low-key and unassuming president, but made a mark and a number of areas, including education, global affairs and advanced many policies to make college more affordable.
he wrote legislation that sought to bring famine relief to dark for an sudan and was the founder of the malaria caucus and secured billions of dollars in foreign aid for treating hiv, aids, tuberculosis and malaria. how do you think your style of congressman compares to your fathers -- compares to your father's? guest: i believe the apple does not fall too far from the tree. i try to be effective in my am more interested in constituent services back at of -- this took a lot for me to do, we miss him a great deal and i have tried to follow his example in public
service and continue to look at the issues that are important to this nation's security, it's better being and uplifting what we can do for the nation. it like being the son of a 12 term member of congress? are there expectations for you? are you expected to have the same positions? guest: some people tend to think he was suchld, but a great individual in terms of issues around africa. africa in expert on the congress during his tenure. think tend to want to
that you will continue to do things exactly the way he did, andwe have our own ideas things that we want to promote. that werend issues important to him are things that i still work on. talk to mye, when i constituents, i tell them that i want to serve them in the manner in which they had been served with a past 23 years and continue to serve them well. host: you watched your father's work and came up through local government in northern new jersey. i wonder if you had any thoughts about donald trump's statements about celebrations taking place 9/11, someity after of the concerns he raised about the muslim community directly after those attacks. trump is aink mr.
great entertainer. i used to enjoy the apprentice. still a tvis celebrity. that whole issue around people in jersey city chairing -- is a fabrication. we tend to see him do that a great deal. i'm not concerned about what he says or thinks. it is an embarrassing time in this nation's history to have such an individual potentially be the nominee of the other party. it is an embarrassment. host: we have time for a few
more calls with congressman donald payne jr.. republicans.a, caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. guest, yousk your sound like you have a lot of common sense, but here is the problem. when these mass shootings are committed and most of the perpetrators are mentally ill, but how do we go and follow the gun? where did the guy in middletown get the gun? from his mother, where did she get it? she was killed, so she can't he brought to responsibility for that act. where was his father? why didn't he intervene? follow the money, i want you to follow the gun. how can we get to that result that we want until we begin to
figure out how we can follow the bring that person to bear the guilt. true andat is very perceptive of you to make that point. that is the case and you are right that in some of these instances, we would not be able to keep them from happening, but throughn stop one finding the way to follow that gun, that would be considered a success. of the things that the president's initiative talked the gun well is closing show loophole.
being able to follow where that gun has been sold and who is corporationsd now are not people, so they don't have to follow -- there was a way to circumvent the law in terms of background check. that is what the president talks about doing, is being able to follow that gun and make sure that someone is held responsible. you are right, it is unfortunate -- unfortunate that the man in newtown did the same to his mother, but if we can't even deal with trying to curtail the incidence where someone who is mentally ill has a gun in his hand and perpetrates something not.fic, then it is offer
we need to have the discussion and we need to have people come together such as yourself. as you complement it be my having common sense and i think -- as you complimented me by saying i have common sense and i thank you for that, you seem to have it as well, you need to get your representatives to feel the same way. the current hartford paper from connecticut, front page today, headline is simply a long journey and then there is embracing thea father of one of the sandy hook victims. he announced that he was pressing ahead with gun control. michigan,ki in, democrats. [inaudible]
i hope this will do some good because we have too much of this gun violence. we have too many guns in this country and the white supremacists are the one who want to use guns. host: that was jesse from michigan. there you see this as an issue of good and evil -- do you see this as an issue of good and evil? guest: i'm not sure about you wonder why in certain times, people become more concerned about the government and there has been , the-- to be honest president has been called critics andy his people on the other side of the aisle.
is -- hethat there wants to take our guns and curtail our freedom. i've seen no indication of that from this president. there are bad politicians, there are bad teachers, there are bad tv commentators. to single out one group for something is not fair. that feel thate way in this country, i don't think we should indict an entire group. host: donald payne jr. is the
congressman from the 10th congress -- 10th district of new jersey. thank you for your time. up next is our weekly spotlight on night using segments. national review writer david french joins us on why overly restrictive rules of engagement -- of engagement in combat could be endangering american soldiers. that is happening next. ♪ >> there is a look at some of the feature programs this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. next tuesday, president obama will deliver his last state of the union address. the saturday and sunday, beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern, we will feature four state of the union addresses by former presidents on their last day -- on the last year in office.
saturday morning at 10:00 -- at 10:30, playwright and star of the broadway musical, hamilton, except the george washington book prize special achievement award and sunday morning at 10 a on road to the white house the 1984e look back to presidential campaign and debate between a democratic candidate in iowa. the person elected to replace that man has to have the trust and confidence of the american people. public statements for the american people being the same, and has to be for all our people. >> for our complete we can schedule, go to c-span.org -- for our complete weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: each weekend this segment, we spotlight a recent magazine piece. we are joined by david french, a
lawyer, iraqi war veteran and author of a recent piece in the december issue of the g.i. jag . over richard rules of engagement are bringing debt to american soldiers. explain the role that army lawyers play in the comment decision making process -- in the combat decision-making process. guest: the best way to do that is to describe a typical scenario. let's imagine you have american troops in the field outside the wire in pursuit of a suspected terrorist. rather than making a decision right there on the spot as to whether to open fire or not and move to detain -- and detain, they will often make a radio call back to what is called a talk, a tactical operations center. a youngthere is usually
officer or lawyer, usually a captain. in the army lawyer world, you become a jacket -- a captain as soon as you graduate from the jag basic course. ify will ask that lawyer there is -- if the legal conditions are sufficient for them to open fire. the lawyer does not make the command decision, but he will look at all the information and decide whether it is legally appropriate for use of force. then the commander makes the decision. an incredibly in cumbersome way of engaging in combat and it's getting to the point in talking to people who just came back, people who have been in afghanistan in the last year or two that virtually every shoot, don't you decision is being made with legal consultation. sometimes, these army lawyers
and i was one making these kinds wrongisions, they get it and american soldiers died. host: that is the question, how with this putting soldiers in danger more than some other way of making these decisions? guest: it is pretty easy to explain. the rules of engagement are not the laws of war. words, a lawyer interpreting rules of engagement is not interpreting the general laws of war. there interpreting narrow and specific rules that govern the use of force on american soldiers and these can be incredibly restrictive. they can require american soldiers not to fire on suspected or even when the american soldiers are certain that they are engaging militants if there is deemed to be an excessive danger of civilian casualties. are being toldrs
to go above and about -- above and beyond the law of war and refrain from the use of force in situations where their own lives are in danger, even when they are under fire, because of these rules. in my magazine piece, i talked about the famous battle in afghanistan where the kota meyer performed feats of heroism that earned him the medal of honor and the rules of engagement in that firefight were such that americans were not allowed to use indirect fire such as artillery if there was any risk at all of civilian casualties. there was a group of marines pinned down by the taliban. heavy firepower cannot be brought to bear to support them, so they were killed. this is something that happens downrange with distressing regularity. as the rules on engagement have narrowed, the other
thing that happens is the enemy learns how to adapt to them and take advantage of them. the enemy lives to fight another day. the enemy is granted safe haven. we have increasing risk for american soldiers, increasing safety for the enemy and that prolongs the insurgency. host: we are talking with david french, a staff writer at national review, a former member of the jag corps and served in iraq. we will have a special line in this segment for members of the military. otherwise, lines for democrats, republicans and independents. why do we do it this way? fly of the rules of engagement so restrictive? -- why are the rules of engagement so
restrictive? guest: the thinking is pretty appealing. you can understand at first glance why we would do this and if you are conducting a counterinsurgency operation and you are trying to clear the civilianom population, you don't want to be killing civilians. you want to have war be as precise as possible. the problem comes when you fail .o understand what war is and it getsrecise less precise when the insurgents are not playing by the same rules. when the insurgents take advantage of those rules, embed themselves ever closer with civilians, knowing the closer they get to civilians, the safer they are. we never the rules more and we narrowed the rules more and they cling closer to civilians6. the combat is prolonged. we don't end up necessarily
saving civilian lives in the long run because the people who kill civilians more than anyone else are the terrorists. if they are allowed to continue to live, operate in the region, they will kill an awful lot of civilians. iraq duringar in the surge in 2007 and 2008. was in near constant contact with the enemy. month after month of daily enemy contact. during that whole time, we inadvertently killed two civilians. time, that same amount of al qaeda and iraq killed hundreds of civilians in the area of operations through suicide bombings, ied, indiscriminate gunfire, you name it. we were living in the female
suicide bombing capital of the world at that time. exact a fearsome toll in civilian lives. the longer they are allowed to live and operate in a region, the more dangerous it is in the long run. host: we would be very interested to hear from retired and active military members. (202) 748-8003 is the number for that line. otherwise, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. david french with his magazine spot on the rules of engagement. arizona, republicans, go ahead. all this deal on people
controlling civilians and people that are in the rear echelon controlling the troops in the field, we had this problem in vietnam. you had no fire zones, you had intelligence saying that the hady was in strength and we -- we waited until we got fired upon big -- before we could fire because we could not fire. deal where we had a if there were oriental soldiers in that area, they were fined because they weren't supposed to be in that area. we were in a dmz.
vietnamese coming in at you. host: david french get into the history of these rules of engagement and i want to let him jump in. guest: i have heard from a number of vietnam veterans who have heard the molar stories from their own deployment and the caller raises a point i have heard from a number of soldiers that they would be so paralyzed by the rules of engagement, unable to conduct what you think as offense of military operations, that they were sometimes reduced to going out on patrol and waiting for someone to shoot at them because of someone shoots at you, that is very clear you're able to fire back -- because if someone shoots at you, it is very clear that you can fire back. that leaves our men and women vulnerable because you are giving the enemy the initiative. you are granting them the terms
under which they engage you in combat. that puts you on the tactical the rulesand then, if are imposed where you are limited in your ability to call , a lot of this enormous advantage that you get from american firepower is squandered and this is a story from vietnam, it is a story from iraq and afghanistan. i think, ironically, the quality of our communication and all of the of our video surveillance have only made things worse. personall you from experience that when you see on the movies about the ability to have this birdseye view of combat and this omniscient view about what's going on to make these good decisions, that is a myth. even with a drone hovering overhead which is not that unit, evena regular with f-16s overhead, when you are back in the toc, you have
very partial pictures and you are asked to make a life or death recommendation. for me, it was a terrifying situation to think that lives were in my hands, then that were closer than me -- closer to me than brothers. i was not infantry or armored, i was a lawyer zero ground combat experience. being asked to make a life or death call and i would say that people should be making a life or death call are the infantry soldiers, armored soldiers, the combat arms men who have been on the line who had that experience and knowledge. to get myself trained up to make better decisions, i went out on patrols. i went out there to see what it was like and that helped me make
better decisions, but that is not necessarily the way things are done downrange and when push comes to shove and you are making a shoot, don't you decisions, when you get that lawyer involved and the lawyer says no, very few commanders are going to overruled her lawyer -- overruled their lawyer -- overrule their lawyer. very few kernels will overrule that lawyer. that is the disproportionate power the lawyer has in that situation. host: many callers lined up, we will try to get to as many of you as we can. marietta, georgia, democrats. guest: i am disappointed in your show today. is an attorney making, decisions and they ought to lock those kids of her -- up
if they shoot somebody and they are not told to. you need rules of engagement for local police departments. the congressman from new jersey is on the coattails of his father and telling as people we have to run his district the same way as men and then you have a congressman from alabama ,alking about guns and blog j people need to wake up and they need to have medical training or mental care for police officers walking around with these guns, have a good year. host: that was his thoughts on the show. carolinadurham, north on the line for retired military retired military. caller: good morning. -- i amo tell you retired military, second acr.
i was in combat, twice and i can totally disagree with his statements on rules of engagement. they are in place so innocent people are not killed. soldiers are not policeman, they should not be chasing terrorists outside the wire. jobs are to go out, setup parameters, defend locations and take one if they need to, but not to be chasing terrorists. we had some lawyers in our unit and they were there to advise the commander. they were not there to say yes or no, the commander makes the call. the lawyer advises him and does not say yeah, take a shot. that is not what attorneys do. with all due respect to your inst, as a former soldier
the second acr, i think he is totally incorrect. host: what is your response? guest: it is simply a fact that there are attorneys now in toc advising commanders. he is right that the commander makes the ultimate decision and i have been in situations where i have said to a commander under the rules of engagement, there is no legal problem with firing on this target and the commander said i don't think we will, we will move to detain the target. situationer been in a , and talking to officers who have been deployed, i have never heard of a situation where a officer said under the rules of engagement, i do not believe -- there are legal grounds for firing on this target rate commander has overruled thejag
officer and engaged, anyway. the real world, it works out to where if a lawyer says no, i have literally never heard of even high-ranking officers inrruling a junior officer experience jack officer, why? if theson is that shooting, if the engagement goes bad, let's say the guys on the ground are wrong. the people they suspect for terrorism are not exit terrorists, or if the airstrike or if the artillery fire mission kills an number of civilians, if things go wrong, and there is a record of a jack officer saying that this does not meet with rules of engagement, there can be serious repercussions that occur. that is why there is an enormous amount of caution. it has got to the point that even more things are relatively clear. where in previous deployments a
soldier would engage a target without even thinking of checking with the officer it has got to the point where they will call back just to get the officer sign off, just in the rare case in the unusual case that something is not quite right that they had the officer sign off. this is happening, it is actually happening. now, we can debate whether under the counterinsurgency document in the u.s. army whether in the long run these rules of engagement are more or less effective for quelling counterinsurgency, it is beyond debate the importance that jack officers have assumed in the shoot do not shoe process. it has gotten only worse since i was in a rack. since i was there, rules of engagement got more broad and narrow. that is depending on the situation. they have only narrowed as the war has continued. host: fort hood, texas.
nicholas is waiting for members of the military. caller: yes. i want to get what they guess things about rules of engagement and everything like that. i went on missions. certainly, we had no objective. patrol, and you just wait for something to happen. a problem we ran into was that -- a of that, what they would do with us is they would wait until we were a highly dangerous area, they would shoot at us from a highly populated area. a building inhabited by civilians. then, they would fire at us and they would disappear to the crowd. they would lay down their weapons and fall behind civilian cover. we are stuck at the point where we do not know who to shoot at. we do not know who shot at us. we are stuck.
on top of that, i would like to say that as far as what you are saying about the jack officer consulting with the commander about the our oe. that is a problem for us on the ground because we run into a situation where we do not have to time to wait for that ok now or never situation would you hit the target now, they will hit us, or things will be worse. i think the rules and engagement are extremely fragile and difficult to manage. in a lot of areas especially iraq and afghanistan they definitely need to be looked at and reviewed. thank you for your time. from fort hood texas. what is your solution here? what you propose to fix the problem? guest: number one, i think that we need to cut the lawyers of the process is much as possible. we need to trust the guys who are on the ground, the guys have
many of theserget guys are engaging with villages have an out there patrolling for weeks and months they understand began toin they often understand who is supposed to be there who is not supposed to be there they begin to develop a gut instinct, a six cents and are right or not right. we need to begin to trust these men were on the ground. we have officers there on the scene. we have sometimes people deployed multiple times. now, and are 14 years of war. let's trust the guys on the ground. let's trust the mend -- the men with the training and experience in combat. let's try to as much as possible cut the lawyers out of it if you have to have legal consultation for a plea -- pre-plan to strike, one replay for days and weeks in advance, that is one thing.
these emerging unfolding situations on the ground. to thehose decision geyser of the combat training and combat experience. number two, we need to stop thinking about rules of engagement and go back to the laws of war. the laws of war are sufficient to govern american troops. the rules of engagement are something else. the loss of four are clear. they rest on simple principles. necessity, attack targets that are necessary to achieve a military objective. distinction. best to distinguish between civilian and military targets. proportionality. in other words, you will not destroy whole city block to stop one sniper. and humanity. weaponsse the kinds of that are not going to be the kinds of weapons to cause unnecessary pain and suffering. these are some clear principles that everyone from a private first class to a lieutenant
colonel can understand the rules of engagement are something else entirely. they get very complicated. they involve things like hostile intent. hostile act. identifiable targets. then difficultis concept to grasp. especially when you're dealing with ttp's. the enemy tactics that vary from region to region district to district. that can be extremely complicated. so, they loss of more than self are relatively simple. they provide latitude to the men on the ground. be, the people who should making the decision are the combat experienced combat trained combat troops. let's go to randy on our line for democrats. good morning. are these the leaks of
the helicopter gunship shooting civilians? thank you. did a specific incident bring about these laws? no. no specific incident has brought about these laws or rules. these rules are the product of a military doctrine. a comprehensive military strategic approach to warfare. in many cases, as the insurgency has dragged on. there has been political pressure exerted from within the military outside of the military, to them a civilian keepsties, that pressure increasing and increasing. to the point where in afghanistan with general mcchrystal, who is a warrior. he as a warrior implement a standard that he wanted heard only 5% of american military operations in afghanistan to be combat oriented.
95% we noncombat. that is a standard that is difficult to apply when the enemy gets a vote. be enemy will launch its own attacks. the enemy dwells in the civilian population. one of the things that we have not talked about yet is how this is impacting the war against isis. seen thegainst isis is strictest rules of engagement ever impose on the u.s. military. where the effort to avoid civilian casualties is so extreme that we are not even bombing isis fuel convoys. so, what that does is that it leaves isis in power. it leaves him with a constant revenue stream, and there in the business of killing civilians. so, i do not necessarily believe that we're being more humanitarian when the united states military is killing the
smallest handle civilians but our enemy that we are allowing to live that we are allowed to conduct operations right under our nose is killing civilians on a large scale. we talked about the effort against the islamic state the graphic on the front page notes that in the 465 days battling the islamic state the u.s. spent $11 million a day. those numbers coming from the department of defense. taking calls in this segment. our weekly spotlight on magazine. with they would french. author of g.i. jack. the scandal of our rules of engagement. host: jim is online for active military members. go ahead. thank you. i have one comment and one suggestion. inthe d-day invasion, june 6 june 7, with the agreement of french over the
31,000 french civilians were killed try to soften up the beaches. if that had not been done in vision would not have succeeded. that's a side perspective. for the jack calling the shots if they are going to be calling the shots with the rules of engagement, they should be deployed at the platoon level. let the jacket go out there the troops. then we can say that we do not do to call the shots. that is where they should be. the caller raises two good points. number one, under current rules of engagement, some of our greatest generals in american history would be viewed as war criminals. ii, worldn world war war i, the civil war, u.s. grants -- ulysses s. grant would be viewed as a workroom appeared this is a dramatic change in the american way of war. the way of four viewed that the humane approach was to end the wars quickly as possible. that was the humane approach we
are taking him as the opposite approach no we're taking an approach worry want to do things that we know are likely to extend the war, rather than take action that we believe will risk civilian casualties. that is a complete reversal, now, i understand there is a difference of pain force on force battle between world war ii and a counterinsurgency operation you see now, but we are conducting counterinsurgency now different than we did for many long years in american military history. counterinsurgency is not a new thing. so come the color brings up a good point. on point number two, in regards to putting a jack officer at a platoon level at the company no, the marines do tend to push their officers closer to the front than the army does. there are some units were they make no bones about it, if i'm going to making decisions, i'm
going to at least be out there enough to understand what the environment is like. the's the problem with system. if you put an officer of the platoon, they are not going to be available to answer calls from platoons elsewhere. if you drone feeds. it forces the officer back into the top come in the rear echelon , out of harm's way. they're looking at drone feed receiving radio communications. the way the current system is set up it is virtually impossible to send an officer out there and have them truly experience the ground combat conditions under which these guys are operating because and they will not be available to answer questions. ist is why my suggestion that we need to delegate the authority where we have a chain or the jack officers are cut out of real-time life or death decisions. i'm not blaming officers for doing the job they were signed to do.
i served with jack officers who were brave men and women they made tough decisions under the worst of circumstances. to this day, they lived with those consequences. sometimes they live with the terrible consequences of the decisions they made. i'm not blaming them. they are doing the job they are ordered to do. what i'm saying is that we need to change the job. host: we have 15 minutes before the house comes in for the day. we'll take our viewers to the floor of the house. we'll try to get as many of your calls as we can. will try to move quickly here. gary in georgia. live for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. it seems like we should maybe change the rules of engagement with these guys. the terrorists. why shouldn't we fight a terrorist with a terrorist. i think it would be less people killed and we would not have to worry about all of these wars with our soldiers a get into these conflicts. just cut the head of the snake
of. why can't we do that? guest: it is interesting. one of the things that end up happening as you hand over control of a certain area, when i was in a rack we would hand over control of a certain area of our operations to iraqi forces. operated under no rules of engagement whatsoever. so, they would treat an enemy area as a free fire zone. that was an effective. free fire,named indiscriminate fire, that thing violates the laws of war, alienates the population what we have are two extremes. on one extreme we have limitations on americans that are so extreme that we are not able to ask you defeat the enemy. we are not able to actually clear the enemy out of an area or hold it effectively. then, we handed over to a less well-trained iraqi or afghan
force that completely disregards the law. a mushroom of fire whatever they're fired upon which is also an effective. instances you do not have truly effective military operations one of the points i made my article was that we keep hearing politicians talk about the last 14 years of war have taught us that there is a limit to the american military power. that is not exactly right. the last 14 years taught us about the limits of very artificially limited american military power. there are instances during the surge of this is an important lesson to learn where we relax the rules of engagement dave are met on the ground greater autonomy to engage the enemy and were very successful we are very successful cleared out the enemy. cleared out enemy fighters. defeated them. kill them. capture them.
, by somed of the surge estimates there were only 700 al qaeda fighters left in all of iraq. only 700. the surge is one we relax some of these rules. where we loosened the restrictions on pilots. loosened artillery. when my unit was less restricted , we had a howitzer battery that fired hundreds of rounds. now, our men were precise. the number of civilian casualties who died was are small. when our men were unleashed, we had accurate fire. with aimed fire. indianapolis, indiana is up next. paul is with us. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you may have already answered my question. i have been retired. i spent the last six years
starting military history. back in the six century during the first laws of war, one of the basics was discrimination. concerned between discrimination and warriors. you paid no attention, you're not supposed to hurt the civilians, but you could kill soldiers. that civilians had to act like civilians. the soldiers were -- two so they were fighters, the civilians did not fight. if they acted like civilians and stabbed in the back, they were outside the law. they lost all rights. it seems now that we give people who act like that the rights of criminal defendants in a court of law. when did that change? that is what i want to know. outstill trying to figure when did this change. host: david french. guest: the caller raises a
point. this is something i think it is one of the core problems. under the laws of war, there is often a mutual obligation for discrimination and distinction. that means all sides are to engage military targets, not civilian targets. to identify themselves by wearing uniforms and distinctive insignia. both sides are obligated not to try to blend in with the civilian population. who bears the burden of the violation of that law? it should be the party violating it. here is what we have done. we have reversed that entirely. as the taliban, as the isis, as al qaeda. it happened systematically by trying to blend in with civilians, like civilians. pick up an ak-47, fire at an blend in. they get all of the benefits of
violating the law. they get none of the penalties. none of the penalties. have completely turned the incentive structure on its head. --are incentivizing violation of the law. we put the entire burden of compliance on the american soldiers. they should be penalized for violating the law of war. host: the article, g.i. jag overreaching death and injury to american soldiers. with 10 mins left. special line for active members of the military. joe is waiting on that line in south carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning. happy new year. i was in iraq in 2004-2005. i was in the 82nd airborne.
we came under 11 different firefights. only one time my commander said we are under fire. in the elections. the election time, we came up on the school. we cannot go to the school. because they did not want the controversy of us being there. so come in we had to core often area two blocks away. schoolwalked up on the and we came under fire because the iraqi police department was firing at us. he said holger fire because, that was the only time he said holger fire. officers.see any so, i do not know what you're talking about.
maybe, i don't know, i have no idea. the jagged officers do not have anything to do with the battles. host: perhaps you can jump in? guest: if you're in a situation where you are on a patrol in your fired upon, the jag officer is not engaged with that issue. :o, if you're being fired upon the senior officer on the scene makes a decision. that is why, as i outlined my article, many officers were patrolling out there as bait, waiting to be fired upon. at least if they're fired upon, there are obligations. their mission got much more clear much faster. they had the ability to immediately respond. we began to get into a situation where let's say that the
engagement last longer than a few seconds or few minutes. request for air support. or there is a request for artillery support. the way the war ,evelops after 2003 2004 2005 then you get to get jag intervention into those requests. unitould have an american pinned down, as i related to my article. they could be begging for air support, begging for artillery support and an officer is saying under the current rules of engagement, that is not authorized. an commander overrules that soldiers are left in the dangerous position. their left in a deadly position, or they are killed. come the colors correct. , whenou're out on patrol you're conducting a mission in your fired upon, the soldier that is there on the ground in
engaging the firefight is going of any jagawareness involvement at all. that would only change later in the war as requests for air support receives jag review. request for artillery support receives review. that is where we begin to see some issues. again, it is not the officers fault. they are doing the job the army told them to do. the problem lies in these rules of engagement heard they became very strict on the use of air support. on the use of artillery support. extremely straight. jags foundre themselves. there is a no and situation where they may have wanted to say yes, there is no problem with unleashing the artillery support, the rules told them that no, they cannot. that is the real tragedy here.
like theincidents battle of iraq and afghanistan. we talked about them in the article, these actually happened. there are marines who may be alive today, we will never know. host: a few tweets from those following along come on c-span's wj. on the segment of the program. said, it this man seems like the united states is in the wrong business when they try to police the world. they said anybody acted like a combatant is fairly treated as a combatant. jim writes in i have never fully understood why wars have laws. it seems to defeat the purpose of warfare. i have two more calls before the house comes in. eddie is waiting in indiana. line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that the
putsn that the jag officer these restrictions on the soldiers is because they are trying to minimize civilian casualties. if you just think about it, it is an unconventional war. past are not wars from the where you have a battlefield. this enemy that we are fighting has taken this guerrilla war .tyle, it is an ideology i do understand how people can think that these people can be somehow defeated. that the only way they really can be defeated is if you come to the table at them and talk some kind of terms. other than that, they're not going to stop. they will keep coming. the reason why they will do that is because we engage them in the beginning. we started this war with them. they can's come to some kind of understanding, it will not stop. grandkids, and all the rest.
so, i don't know what to say. host: did you want to respond? guest: historically, history shows you can win counterinsurgency. you can win a counterinsurgency warfare. they're not hopeless. they become more or less helpless dependent on certain conditions. there are multiple examples of american military forces in counterinsurgency warfare successfully. so, max boot wrote an interesting book a few years ago called the savage wars of peace that i would urge anyone to read. it relates american counterinsurgency after counterinsurgency. and conflicts that nobody has heard of. americans have fought it over the course of our nation's history. so, you can win counterinsurgency. rack, al qaeda and iraq had
been reduced to nearly nothing this. about 700 fighters. while they had some ability to wreak have it here and there, they had no real ability to threaten the government. none. it was gone. then, america pulled out. those al qaeda commanders when over to syria. they took advantage of the conditions in the syrian civil war. they rebuilt the jihadist armie, they poured back over the border in 2014. the rest is history regarding isis. as far as the caller's suggestion that you have to come to the table to meet people, there has been counterinsurgency in which negotiated settlements were possible. i would cement that with al isis, with organizations like boko rom, the notion of a negotiation settlement to those who are trying to create a jihadist caliphate, that is not going to happen.
in joe fromget oklahoma. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i know you guys are short on time. toould caution everybody fact check the individual that is talking to us now on c-span. we all know that george w. bush signed the status of forces agreement that called for our troops to be out of a wreck. he has also spent a lot of time talking about the surge we did in a wreck. what he is not talking about is the million dollars a day we have been paying sunni insurgents not to attack our andps, they took that money all the weapons bush left them. now, we are paying for it. host: i want to give you a chance to respond. guest: i was actually a part of the operations connected with these so-called sunni awakening where you would create what we called in awakening council, sons of iraq.
these people who come after he cleared us al qaeda, after we held it against al qaeda's ,ounterattack we would stand up for lack of a better term some local militia. we did not supply them with american weapons. they had largely old ak-47s. and, they did not engage in combat. where the incident entire time they engage in combat against al qaeda. not isis.le were were not the people who came back and swept through mosul. that is just factually incorrect. there might be an and bar province with some of those people because of complex sunni tribal politics involved in isis. possible to the central government after the government essentially begin to purge sunnis.
the government did a host of things between 2009-2011 to squander the advantages given them after the surge. in,: i do not want to jump but the house is coming in. want to thank you for your time. now, we are giving our viewers live to the floor of the house. gavel-to-gavel coverage. here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. january 6, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable ryan a. costello to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one